Mithamo v Maina (Civil Case E107 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 298 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 298 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE NANYUKI LAW COURTS CIVIL CASE E107 OF 2023 D NGAYO, SRM JULY 13, 2026 BETWEEN JOHN NDUNGU MITHAMO .................................................................. PLAINTIFF AND CHARLES GICHUKI MAINA .............................................................. DEFENDANT RULING Rulling Of The Court 1. Before this court for assessment is the Plaintifi’s party and party bill of costs dated 18th February, 2026 wherein the Plaintifi seeks to have assessed by this Honourable Court at a total sum of Kshs. 134,389/ =. The Defendant did not file any response to the bill of costs. In the circumstances therefore, I shall therefore proceed to assess the bill of costs in accordance with the laid down principles of taxation. 2. In this case, I am guided by Schedule 7 of the Advocates (Remuneration) (Amendment) Order, 2014. In assessing costs in this case, I have duly considered the principles discussed by the Court of Appeal in Premchand Raichand vs. Quary Services EA Ltd where the Court held in part as follows regarding costs: i. That costs should not be allowed to rise to a level as to confine access to the courts to the wealthy; ii. That a successful litigant ought to be fairly reimbursed for the costs he has to incur; iii. That the general level of remuneration of advocates must be such as to attract recruits to the profession; and iv. So far as is practicable there should be consistency in the awards made. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/298/eng@2026-07-13 1
page 1 of 2
3. I have equally taken into account the principles laid out in Republic vs. Minister for Agriculture Exparte Samuel Muchiri W/Njuguna which was quoted in approval by the High Court in Kyalo Mbobu T/A Kyalo & Associates Advocates v Jacob Juma, where court held as follows: “ The complex elements in the proceedings which guide the exercise of the taxing oficer’s discretion must be specified cogently and with conviction. The nature of the forensic responsibility placed upon counsel, when they prosecute, the substantive proceedings, must be described with specifity. If novelty is involved in the main proceedings, the nature of it must be identified and set out in a conscientious mode. If the conduct of the proceedings necessitated the deployment of a considerable amount of industry, and was inordinately time consuming, the details of such a situation must be set out in a clear manner. If large volumes of documentation had to be clarified, assessed and simplified, the details of such initiative by counsel must be specifically indicated apart of cause from the need to show if such works have not already been provided for under a difierent head of costs. 4. Item 2 is assessed at a sum of Kshs. 1,400/=. Item 30 is taxed ofi as no proof of the same was availed. Concerning the other items in the bill of costs, I am of the considered view that the same are drawn to scale and that there is nothing to suggest that the amounts sought are in any way exorbitant and/ or unreasonable. Given the foregoing, I assess the Plaintifi’s party and party bill of costs at a total sum of Kshs. 124,789/=. RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT AT NANYUKI THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026. HON. DANIEL NGAYO., SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/298/eng@2026-07-13 2
page 2 of 2